The Advent of Muhammad Foretold:

by Maulana Aftab-ud-Din Ahmad

These are the days of revolution, when men would appear
to entertain hatred rather than any reverence for tradition. “Down with the past" is
the slogan in the air. Humanity seems prepared to build its future without
any reference whatsoever to what has gone before. Still, there are many who
doubt if humanity can ever actually erect a wholly new structure of civilised
life; and whatever hope we may repose in the present Russian spirit of pro­gress
by revolution, humanity, at bottom, is averse from taking indefinite risks
of an entirely new future. That it desires change there can be no doubt — only
such change as comes in the shape, as it were, of pieces grafted on to the
principal body of the existing system. A change that thwarts or injures this
principal body may excite radicals to hurried enthusiastic action, but can
never appeal to the generality of people as a practical programme. Be this
as it may, economic and political movements can achieve a measure of success
by methods revolutionary, because they have facts and figures to offer that
are tangible to external senses, that minister to animal needs, and promise
results that are near at hand.

But religion being what it is, has to depend constantly
on tradition — a reference to the past religions, prior to Islam, had this as their sole support.
Islam, however, introduced for the first time reasoning and argument in the
establishment of religious truths, and this reasoning was drawn, first, from
the phenomena of nature, and secondly, from the lessons of history. Although
this latter kind of reasoning is also a reference to the past, yet it decidedly
comes within the category of argument. The sort of refer­ence to the past,
however, which religion is particularly wont to make, is that comprised in
tradition and prophecy, and Islam, although it had its independent way of carrying
conviction to the unbelieving mind, found also the necessity of having recourse
to this particular method of proving the truth of its claims. The reason is
obvious. However rationalistic a religion may be, its perspective, since it
has to deal with facts which require subtler faculties for their comprehension,
is naturally far hazier than it is in the case of secular movements. A reference
to tradition, to show in the light of present events the fulfilment of some
prophecy made in the past, is helpful in creating the faith needed to take
action on the lines of the new movement. It not only assists the new leader
in his claims to leader­ship, but also increases faith in those whose prophecies
he comes to fulfil. Thus, incidentally, it affords mighty proof of the existence
of God — the bedrock of religion inasmuch as it indicates the continuity
of a single and conscious will throughout successive periods of human history;
and further — and this is of immediate concern — it minimises the uncertainties
of treading an untrodden path — the one chalked out by the prophet or the
reformer on the field. Even here there is, it is true, the danger of abuse,
but where is the method which has not this danger? Considerations such as these
constitute, I hope, a sufficient justification for the publication of the present
tract. Who knows how many sincere souls there may be, outside the fold, who
may find in this a great, sign from their Lord?

A word in conclusion — just to guard against a mis­understanding that
may arise in the wake of my contentions that follow. We Muslims resent Christian
missionaries quoting from the Quran in support of their own conten­tions,
and yet I have myself based the relevant portion of my arguments on the Christian
scriptures. The reality at the bottom of this apparent paradox is that whereas
the Christians regard the source of the Holy Quran as unholy, and its Messenger
as wholly a pretender, we Muslims look upon the source of the Bible as holy
and Divine, and its medium as a truthful man. Of course, Muslims regard the
Christian scripture as interpolated, but interpolation still implies retention
of some original truths.

A Unique Feature of Muhammad's Claim

“And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what
I have given you of Book and wisdom — then an apostle comes to you verifying
that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said:
Do you affirm and accept my compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm.
He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you” (Holy
Quran: 3:80).

The Promised One of All Prophets

Prophecies concerning the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him)
are to be found in the previous sacred books, and had great currency among
all nations. In fact, those very prophecies might well have impelled both Jews
and Christians to settle down in Arabia; for the land of the promised Prophet
was specified by name in their Scriptures.

The Quran declares that the appearance of the Holy
Prophet was foretold by each and all of the preceding prophets, through whom
also the covenant was made with their respective peoples, that they would
accept him when he made his appearance. The distinguishing feature of the
Promised One, they were told, was that he would bear testimony to the truth
of all the prophets of the world. It seems that Providence had thought it
fit to depute a separate prophet for each nation, in the days of yore, when
the nations of the earth lived in absolute isolation one from another, and
modern means of communication had not come into existence. Then, to amalgamate
the diverse religious systems into one all-comprehensive faith, as well as
to weld humanity into one universal brotherhood, He raised up a Prophet whose
mission was to the whole of mankind. Thus, while on the one hand the happy
tidings of such a world-prophet had been imparted to each preceding prophet,
the Promised Prophet was, on the other, commissioned to testify to the truth
of all the foregoing prophets wherever and whenever raised up the whole world
over. And the Holy Prophet answers in every detail to this description. He
laid it down as one of the cardinal doctrines of faith that all the other
prophets of the world should be accepted along with him. At the very opening
of the Quran, a description of the faithful is given in the words: “And those who believe in that which has been revealed to
thee, and that which was revealed before thee” (2:4).

Then, as regards the raising up of a reformer in each
nation, the Quran makes a general statement: “There has not been a nation but it had a warner” (35:24).

Elsewhere, too, it says that it makes mention of certain
of the prophets, while there are others who have not been expressly spoken
of: “And (We
sent) messengers We have mentioned to thee before and messengers We have not
mentioned to thee. And to Moses Allah addressed His word, speaking (to him)” (4:164).

So, from both their points of view, the Holy Prophet Muhammad stands forth
unique for the predictions of all his predecessors find due fulfilment in his
person, and he alone, out of all the prophets, has made it a binding article
of faith to believe in all the prophets of the world. Thus, he is the last
of that noble band of prophets, as foretold by all his predecessors.

The principle that the Prophet testifies to the truth
of all previous revelation furnishes a strong foundation for harmony between
the various religions of the world, as well as for the unity of the human
race, and the fact that all the foregoing prophets testify to the truth of
the Prophet Muhammad constitutes a yet stronger testimony to the truth of
Islam and the unity of religions. There has been no prophet in any country,
among any people, who has not prophesied the advent of the Prophet Muhammad.
This is a point which deserves the most earnest consideration at the hands
of all reasonable men. Prophets who lived thousands of years ago and in countries
far distant from Arabia, all drew their knowledge from the same All-knowing
Source, and all foretold the advent of a mighty Prophet in Arabia. These
prophecies are not merely so many items of news — they were accompanied
by the signs of the mighty hand of God, far beyond the imagination of mortal
man.

Prophecy in the Parsi Scripture

Among existing world religions, the Parsis and the
Arya Samajists, on behalf of Hinduism, vie each with the other to prove a
more remote antiquity for their respective faith. Learned Hindu historians,
like the late Messrs. Tilak and Lajpat Rai, also admit the antiquity of both
these religions, of which we now take the first. The religion of the Parsis
has two collections of scriptures, the Dasatir and the Zand
Avasta, which
may be called respect­ively the
Old and the New Testaments of the Parsi faith. In Dasatir No. 14, which is
associated with the name of Sasan I, there is not only a corroboration of the
doctrines and teachings of Islam, but a clear prophecy as to the advent of
the Prophet Muhammad. This prophecy had gained so much currency and was deemed
of so great an importance that for thousands of years after Sasan, the Parsis
have been eagerly looking forward to the advent of this Promised One. St. Matthew,
the Evangelist, taking advantage of this universal belief among the Parsis,
sought to show that the Promised One was Jesus, but, as it happens, there is
no prophecy among the Magians which can at all correspond with the figure of
Jesus. On the other hand, there is a prophecy contained in the above-named
Nama No. 14 which clearly points to the appearance of the Prophet Muhammad.
Thus Sasan, after depicting a state of extreme disorder and demoralisation
in Persia , says as follows:

“When the Persians should sink so low in morality, a man should be born
in Arabia whose followers shall upset their throne, kingdom, religion and everything.
The mighty stiff-necked ones of Persia shall be overpowered. The house which
was built (refer­ring to Abraham building the Ka'aba), and in which many
idols have been placed, shall be purged of idols and men shall say their
prayers facing towards it. His followers shall capture the towns of the Parsis
and Tas and Balkh and other great cities round about. People will strive
with one another, and the wise men of Persia and others will join his followers.”

This prophecy is contained in a book which has always been in the hands of
the Parsis. The words are most clear and unambiguous. The coming man is to
be an Arab. The Persians would join his faith. Fire-temples would be destroyed.
Idols would be removed. People would say prayers facing towards the Ka'aba.
Can this prophecy fit in with any person other than the Prophet Muhammad?

Matthew's Version Unfounded

Among the Evangelists, St. Matthew is a man with a taste and temperament of
his own. Wherever he comes across even a vague rumour, he seizes upon it and
applies it to Jesus. He is particularly adept in distorting texts from the
ancient scriptures, clothing them with meanings of his own, and making them
fit in with the life of Jesus. Where necessary, he does not hesitate to alter
the text even of the Old Testament (vide Introduction to the Bible by Prof.
Horn). In Persia , the prophecy of Sasan was on everybody's lips, and people
were looking forward to the advent of a Tazi man, that is, an Arab. As soon
as St. Matthew came to know of this, he at once coined a story about it, containing
a great many things which are beyond comprehension. The fact that no other
of the Evangelists has mentioned this story is conclusive proof of its falsity.

St. Luke, who claims to record only the authentic reports,
gives us, instead, another story about some shepherds. But he makes no mention
of the alleged fact that the "Magi" seeing the star, came from Persia and prostrated
themselves before Jesus; and indeed the Christian tradi­tion that a certain
Magian or a King of the Magians be­came Christian has no foundations in
fact. It is, how­ever, not our purpose to go into such details. Suffice
it to say that the prophecy about the Tazi (Arab) man had gained so widespread
a currency among the Persians, that for thousands of years the Magians had
been eagerly looking forward to his advent. As foretold in the prophecy, just
before the coming of the Holy Prophet, the Persians had sunk to very low depths
as regards morality and reli­gion. At the hands of his followers Persia
was con­quered, and the wise men of Persia embraced Islam. Fire-temples
were extinguished. Mosques were erected. The House of Ka'aba became the Qibla of the Persians, and thus the prophecy of Sasan was fulfilled to the very letter.

Prophecies in Hindu Scriptures

In the Hindu Scriptures also there are many pro­phecies
touching the Holy Prophet Muhammad. A few of these are in the Puranas, two
of them in the Upanishads, and others in the Vedas. Of the Puranic prophecies,
that in the Bhavishya Purana is the clearest of all. It gives even the name
and the main attributes of the Prophet, and for this reason, the Arya Samaj
has tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of the passage, their only argument
being to the effect that it contains a reference to the Prophet. According
to Sanatanist Pandits and the vast bulk of Hindus, however, it is considered
quite authentic. The prophecy runs as follows:

“Just then a man with the epithet “Illiterate," Muhammad
by name, and an inhabitant of Arabia, appeared with his com­panions....
O denizen of Arabia and master of the world, to thee is my adoration! O thou
who hast found many ways and means to destroy all the devils of the world,
to thee is my adoration. O pure one from among the illiterates, O sinless one,
the spirit of truth and absolute master, to thee is my adoration. Accept me
at thy feet” [Bha'vishya Purana, Para 3, Kanda 3, Adhyaya 3, Shlokas
5, 7, 8].

This is the spiritual illumination which the author of the Bhavishya Purana
obtained and he described, accordingly, the coming of Prophet Muhammad.

Above the Purina in point of importance comes, in Hindu
literature, the position of the Upanishads, which are considered by most
critics as supplementary to the Vedas. One of these Upanishads is known as
Allo Upanishad. From its style and date of compilation it would seem to be
a part of the Atharv Veda. In the Sanskrit lexicon, Wachaspati, which is
considered to be of very ancient origin, the author, giving the meaning of
the word Allah, says that Allah Sukta is a sukta or song of the Atharv Veda.
In Shabdkalpadrum, compiled by Raja Radha Kant, also Allah
Sukta has been
mentioned as a sukta of Atharv Veda. Allo Upanishad has been printed apart
from the Veda — one edition in Bombay along with
a Gujerati translation by a Shastri Pandit, and another in Calcutta by Upendra
Nath Mukhopadhya. In this, the words of the prophecy are:

“Allah is the owner of High attributes, complete,
perfect, All-knowing. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, the All-wise. Light
upon light, Allah is Imperishable, One, Ever-perfect and Self-subsistent.”

Above the Upanishads come the Vedas and the Atharv Veda has the following
clear prophecy about the Holy Prophet:

“O people, hear this most needfully! The man of praise (Muhammad) will
be raised among the people. We take the emi­grant into our shelter from
sixty thousand and ninety enemies — whose means of conveyance are twenty
camels and she-camels, whose loftiness of position touches the heaven and lowers
it. He gave to Mamah Rishi hundreds of gold coins, ten ciroles, three hundred
Arab horses and ten thousand cows” [Atharv Veda, Kanda 20, Sukta 127,
Mantra 1 — 3].

The emphasis placed on this passage is nowhere else
to be met with in the four Vedas. It is true that in the text of this prophecy
there is a certain amount of discrepancy in the various editions of the Atharv
Veda, and it would seem that attempts have been made to amend it. The edition
of the Veda printed in Ajmer differs in several words from the Sayna Bhashya
text of the Atharv Veda. For instance, the Ajmer edition gives the word ishae,
whereas Sayna Bhashya has Rishi. It is just possible that, originally, instead
of the words Mamah Rishi there may have been Muhammad Rishi. However that
may be, there never has existed any such Rishi as Mamah Rishi among the Vedic
Rishis. The fact that he had camels and she-camels to ride on also shows
that he could not be an Indian Rishi, for, according to Manu Smirti, Shalok
201, it is forbidden for the Rishis to ride on camels. To escape from 60,000
enemies is also a pecu­liarity
of the Prophet's emigration to Medina. The loftiness of his position, reaching
up to heaven, is a translation of the Quranic verse: “He is on the highest
horizon." Ten thousand cows refer to the 10,000 com­panions whom the
Prophet had with him at the time of the conquest of Mecca, as also mentioned
in the Bible, Deut. 33:2. The ten circles are the ten detachments under ten
different chiefs into which his army was divided. The three hundred Arab horses
also seem to indicate that the prophecy relates to the Arabian Prophet. These
two Vedic Mantras refer to the two most conspicuous episodes in the life of
the Holy Prophet. One is the emigration when, from the midst of 60,000 enemies
bent upon taking his life, God brought him in safety to Medina. This was the
height of the Prophet's helplessness. The other landmark selected from his
life is the occasion when, at the zenith of his glory and at the head of 10,000
angelic companions, he entered Mecca in triumph, riding on a camel.

Prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures

Next in point of antiquity comes the religion of the Jews. The religious history
of the Jews is unique as regards its continuity of record. A civilised nation
emerging in a remote antiquity, they still persist in their own tradition and
culture. With all the charges of interpolation brought against it, their Scripture
succeeds in giving us a connected history of the whole period of their national
existence; and herein we find several prophecies concerning the advent of the
Holy Prophet Muhammad.

Abraham's Prophecies

The Israelites and the Ishmaelites came of a common
progenitor — Abraham.
Though the Divine Scripture revealed to Abraham has not come down to us, yet
much light is thrown on God's promises to him concerning the future of his
sons, Isaac and Ishmael, by the Old Testa­ment in the book of Genesis.
The Holy Quran also alludes to the same promises when it says: “And when
his Lord tried Abraham with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said, I will
make thee a leader of men. Abraham said: And of my offspring? My covenant does
not include the unjust, said He" (2:124).

And again in the joint prayer of Abraham and Ishmael: “Our Lord! Raise
up a Prophet to them from among themselves, who shall recite Thy verses to
them, and teach them the Book and wisdom, and purify them" (Genesis 12:
2 — 3).

The Old Testament records a Divine promise to the same effect, made to Abraham,
even before the birth of Isaac and Ishmael (2:124).

“And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make
thy name great and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless
thee, and curse him that curseth thee and in thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed” (2:129).

The reference is made to Ishmael by name, in the same book of the Genesis
(17:20):

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold I have blessed him and will
make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly: twelve princes shall
he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Moses' Prophecies

The second prophecy announcing the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad found utterance through
Moses :

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and
will put my words in his mouth (Deut. 18:18).

No one of the prophets of Israel , that followed Moses
in a long succession down to Jesus, ever claimed to be the prophet promised
here — and that
for obvious reasons. The successors of Moses, who came simply to fulfil the
law of Moses, could not be like unto him. The prophecy was of common knowledge
among the Jews, who expected, generation after generation, a Prophet like unto
Moses, and this is amply borne out by the conversation that passed between
John the Baptist and those who came to ask him "Who art thou?" "And
he confessed — I am not the Christ. And they asked him what then? Art thou
Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And he answered, No." (John
1:19 — 21). This shows clearly enough that the Jews were in expectation
of the appearance of three different prophets. Firstly, Elias, who, they thought,
was to reappear in person: secondly, the Christ; and, thirdly, a Prophet of
such universal fame that, in his case, no farther specification was thought
necessary — "That Prophet" was enough to convey who was meant.
Such was the household currency which Moses' prophecy concerning a Prophet
like unto him had gained among the Jews. So let me repeat, it is quite
evident that, just before the appearance of Jesus, the Jews were eagerly looking
for three prophets, as foretold in their scriptures — the Christ, Elias
in his second advent, and the Prophet "like unto Moses." Now, two
of these prophecies were fulfilled in the persons of Jesus and John the one
claiming to be the Christ, and the other to have been raised in the spirit
of Elias, but neither of the two laid any claim to be the Promised Prophet "like
unto Moses," nor did any of those who accepted them identify them as such.
With Jesus, the chain of prophethood among the Israelites came to an end. Thus
the prophecy of Deuteronomy regarding a Prophet “like unto Moses” remained
unfulfilled so far as the Israelites were concerned. Now, turning to the history
of the world, we find that no other prophet except Muhammad (peace be on him),
ever claimed to be the Prophet foretold by Moses; and that no other sacred
book, but the Holy Quran, even so much as hinted at anyone as fulfilling the
prophecy, and actual facts support the same conclusion. Moses was a law-giver
and so was Muhammad (peace be on them). Among the Israelite Prophets who succeeded
Moses, no one brought a new law, so the Holy Prophet Muhammad, being the only
law-giving Prophet, is thus the only Prophet “like unto Moses." The
Holy Quran says:

“Verily, We have raised a Prophet among you, like unto the Prophet that
we sent to Pharaoh” (73:15).

Again, it invites the attention of the Jews to the prophecy in Deuteronomy
in these words:

“A witness from among the Israelites has borne witness of one like him” (46:
10).

The words of the prophecy, “from among their brethren," throw further
light on the fact that the Pro­mised Prophet was to arise, not from among
the Israelites themselves, but from among their brethren, the sons of Ishmael.

A third prophecy in equally clear terms is to be found
in the same book — Deuteronomy. It
says:

“The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir to them; he shined
forth from Mount Paran, and he came forth with ten thou­sands of saints;
from his right-hand went a fiery law for them” (33:2).

“Coming from Sinai" refers to the appearance of Moses, and "rising
up from Seir" to the conquest of Seir by David. Now, Paran is admittedly
the ancient name for the land of Hedjaz, where arose Muhammad (on whom be peace)
from among the descendants of Ishmael. The words “he came forth with
ten thousands of saints” point still more unmistakably to the identity
of the person to whom they refer. The Holy Prophet Muhammad, of all world-heroes,
is the one solitary historical personage whose triumphal entry into Mecca
with ten thousand saintly followers is a matter of common knowledge. The
Law which he gave to the world is, to this day, known as baiza or
shining, for it throws full light on all matters pertaining to the religious,
moral and social welfare of man; and it is to this that allusion is made
in the words "from his
right-hand went a fiery law for them."

Asaiah's Prophecies

A fourth prophecy specifies the land of the Promised Prophet as Arabia:

“The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia
shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companions of Dedanites. Unto him that was
thirsty they brought water, the inhabitants of the land of Tima did meet
the fugitives with their bread. For they fled away from the swords, from
the drawn sword and from the bent bow and from the grievousness of war.”

In the first place, the word “Arabia" is itself significant. Then,
the mention of one who fled sheds still further light on the meaning of the
prophecy. History records but one such flight that has won the importance of
a red-letter event — the flight of the Holy Prophet Muhammad from Mecca.
It is from this point of time that the Muslim Era commences, for it marked,
in fact, the opening of a new chapter in the history of Islam, or rather of
the civilisation of the world. A yet clearer testimony, how­ever, is contained
in the words “he fled from drawn swords." History confirms that the Holy Prophet
Muhammad fled from Mecca while his house was surround­ed by bloodthirsty
enemies with drawn swords ready to fall upon him in a body as soon as he should
come out. In vain will you turn the pages of history to find another instance
of a flight which resulted in issues so far-reaching and momentous, or of another
who escaped for his life through swords. These two acknowledged facts of history,
supplemented by a direct mention of the land of Arabia as the birthplace of
the Promised Prophet, will furnish well-nigh indisputable presumption, amounting
almost to proof that the prophecy refers to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

Prophecy in the Buddhist Scriptures

Next in point of antiquity comes Buddhism. Although
this religion started as a movement, reformative of Hinduism, and although
Buddha has since found a place in the Hindu Pantheon, it has become, for
all practical purposes, a separate religion, as it runs counter to two very
fundamental principles of Hinduism as it stands to­day. It does not regard
itself a national cult belonging exclusively to the Aryan Hindu race nor
does it countenance the caste system, which is the mainstay of that much
philosophised cult. It is remarkable that a product of the Indian soil, Buddhism,
is conspicuous by its absence in that country and is professed and upheld
at the moment by races other than Hindu, and, curiously enough, this mostly
by the people of the Mongolian stock.

Buddha, the founder of this religion, was a Hindu,
living some five hundred years before Jesus. Although he is regarded almost
as an incarnation of God, it is interesting to note that he does not arrogate
an exclusive Buddhahood for himself. He claims to be the last of a series
of Buddhas, seven in number, and, according to some authorities, even twenty-four.
We are told on the authority of T. W. Rhys Davids that "the earliest and the shortest list of these Buddhas
may reach back nearly, if not quite, to the time of the Buddha." It
is clear from this that Buddha really claimed to be one of the many Buddhas
that had appeared before him; and this is in perfect harmony with the implications
of the Quranic verse which says that there has not been a people but a Warner
has gone among them. India is an ancient land of civilisation and needed, indeed,
a series of Buddhas in the long course of its history. We are told that
the Buddha Vainsa or History of the Buddhas gives the names of the twenty-four
Buddhas, and that the Pali Commentary on the Jatakas gives certain details
regarding each of the twenty-four. It is quite clear from this that the
term Buddha is not a personal name, but only an appella­tive, having the
same sense as the Arabic and Hebrew word Nabi. The personal name of the
sage was Gautama, and he was, according to his own statement, the last of a
series of Buddhas. But apart from the Buddhas of the past, Gautama Buddha
also spoke of a Buddha that would follow him and whose name would be Metteyya. As
a matter of fact, Buddha Gautama holds the same position in the religious history
of the Hindu race as Jesus did in that of the Jews. He was the last of
the national prophets of India ; he was born at a time when the Indian nation,
along with other nations of the world, was feeling an inner urge for an international
religion; his teachings, like those of Jesus, must therefore have contained
a strong and unprecedented international leaven. Or else, being a reformative
movement of the exclusively national religion of Hinduism, it could not have
found the congenial response which it did in foreign people. It is necessary
to bear in mind, in this connection, that although Buddhism had its glorious
days also in India , even here it was more popular among the non-Aryans and
the down­trodden than among the high-bred Aryans. In every respect,
therefore, Buddhism may be said to have played the same part in the history
of Hinduism as did Christianity with regard to Judaism, and the reason is obvious.
Each of them emerged in its respective community, when that community was at
the end of its exclusive national existence and entering upon a period of international
existence.

Seeing all this, a Muslim is tempted to expect to find
some sort of prophecy recorded in Buddhist Scriptures as to the advent of
the great World-Prophet, whose way he had come, so to say, to prepare, like
the prophecies of Jesus concerning the Comforter in the Gospel of John, which
we are going to discuss in the next chapter. And he is, indeed, reassured
in this hope, on learning that Digha Nikaya, one of the oldest documents
of Buddhist doctrines, mentions the name of the Buddha
of the Future, who,
when the religion of Gautama shall have been forgotten, will again reveal the
path to men. His name is given, as already mentioned, as Metteyya (Sanskrit — Maitreya)
Buddha, or the Buddha of kindness or benevolence. A Muslim is at once reminded
of a verse in the Holy Quran regarding the Holy Prophet Muhammad:

“And We have not sent you but as a Mercy to (all) the nations” (21:107).

The personal name of Maitreya is said to be Aijita, meaning unconquerable.
To a Muslim, the name is suggestive of another aspect of the Prophet Muhammad's
appearance, which is described in the Quran in its following verse:

“He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance
and the True Religion, that he may make it overcome the religions, all of them,
though the polytheists may be averse” (61:9).

It should be remembered that this doctrine of Maitreya
Buddha forms part of the Hinayana, or Little Vehicle system of Buddhism,
which is the old and orthodox school of thought based on the teachings of
the Pitakas, as distin­guished
from the later school called the Mahayana or the Great Vehicle.

A closer study of the Buddhist Scriptures may lead to the discovery of clearer
statements on the subject, but those that have been discussed here are clear
enough for our purpose.

Prophecies of Jesus in The Christian Testament

There are also prophecies by other Israelite Prophets,
such as David, Solomon, Habakkuk, Haggai and others, but for the sake of
brevity we will refer to only one, by the last of the Israelite prophets,
that is to say, by Jesus — the
founder of Christianity — the last of the great religions before Islam — which
runs:

“If ye love me, keep my commands. And I will pray to the Father and
He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even
the Spirit of Truth” (John 14:15 — 17).

Again:

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send
in my name, shall teach all things” (Ibid. 14:26).

And again:

“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I
go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if
I depart, I will send him unto you” (Ibid. 10: 17.).

Yet again:

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you unto all truths” (Ibid.
16: 12-13.).

All these prophetic words clearly predict the advent
of another prophet after Jesus. The terms of the prophecy do not warrant
the conclusion that they are applicable to the Holy Ghost. “If I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you,” are plain words and unambiguous. The New Testament says
that John was filled with the Holy Ghost even before he was born, and speaks
of Jesus himself as receiving the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. Thus, the
Holy Ghost was wont to visit men before Jesus as well as in his own time. To
what, then, is the reference in the words, “If I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you?” Surely not to the Holy Ghost; for it would
be sacrilege to assume for a moment that Jesus was without the Holy Ghost;
and genuine reverence for Jesus demands that we should recognise even his disciples
purified as they were at the hands of their great Master as having been pure
enough to merit the companionship of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Quran at least
credits the companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad with such company in clear
terms: “And He aided them with the Holy Spirit from Himself” (58:22).

The words Holy Ghost in the prophecy, if they were
not an interpolation, are intended to signify that the Pro­mised One would have such an inseparable
union with the Holy Ghost that his advent might be taken, metaphori­cally
of course, as the coming of the Holy Ghost himself. There are other words,
too, in the prophecy which are solely applicable to the Prophet Muhammad, and
the characteristic features set forth therein are, one and all, to be found
in him. "That he may abide with you for ever," indicates that there
would be no prophet after the Promised One, and this is precisely what the
Holy Quran says of Muhammad: "The last of the Prophets" (33:40).

Again, “He shall teach you all things," says the prophecy, and
the Holy Quran telling of the dispensation of the Prophet Muhammad replies: "This
day I have made perfect for you your religion" (3:3).

The Promised One is called the “Spirit of Truth" in the prophecy,
to which the Holy Quran responds in the words: " Say, the Truth has come
and falsehood has vanished" (17:18).

The word translated Comforter in the English versions
of the Bible has given rise to considerable con­troversy between Christian and Muslim theologians.
The word in the Greek version is Paraclete. The Muslims contend that it is
a deliberate interpolation made by the Christians to set aside the claims of
Muhammad, and that the original word was periclyte, which word, they argue,
is still to be found in the Gospel of Barnabas (who is unjustly denounced by
Christian theologians as a renegade to Islam) and has the meaning of much
praised,
as has the word Muhammad in Arabic. But, even admitting for the sake of argument
that paraclete is correct, its translation comforter, they say, is not correct,
and they argue thus:

Jesus, born of Jewish parents, having lived and moved
always among the Jews and preached to the Jews, must have imparted his lessons
in Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people. His favourite disciples were
simple fishermen, not well-versed in foreign languages. The sole object set
before himself was that of reforming the Jewish people. The Jews accused
him of plagiarism; for he quoted so often from old Jewish writings — all
of which facts go to show that Jesus instructed his people through the medium
of their own language, that is to say, in Hebrew.

The Greek word Paraclete must, therefore, owe its origin
to the Hebrew language. The word was ob­viously used as a proper noun to indicate, as we shall
later on show, the person whose advent was foretold. It is not reasonable to
suppose that the present Greek form there­of was adopted as equivalent,
in respect of meaning, to the original word uttered by Jesus in Hebrew. In
all probability the very word must have been retained in the Greek version
as well, with such phonetic adjustments as would be alterable to fit in with
the Greek form of pro­nunciation. It is thus irrelevant to argue that in
Greek the word Paraclete means Comforter, or this or that, seeing that such
meaning is applicable neither to Muhammad nor to Ahmad, the two names of the
Holy Prophet of Arabia. We must be obviously on the wrong track if the Greek
sense of the word is taken into consideration, for it was not with reference
to its connotation but rather its phonetic adjustability that the word was
imported into the Greek text; and this should be our guiding principle in hunting
down the origin of the word in Hebrew.

Hebrew being, unfortunately, a language long since
dead and buried, we can only resort to its living representa­tive, that is, Arabic, if we are to
arrive at any clue. Experts on Philology are at one on the point that, of all
the members of the Semitic family of languages, Arabic alone is such as can
throw light upon doubtful issues that may arise in connection with the rest.
Arabic, moreover, has significant characteristic of its own; for an Arabic
word, in its etymological sense, points always to the purpose with which the
word was coined. Corresponding to the Greek Paraclete we have the word Farqaleet which it closely resembles. Let us, therefore, consider whether or not the
original Hebrew word was Farqaleet; for it is not infrequently the case that
we come upon words common to both of these sister tongues. We have ample grounds
for so supposing, both in the etymological sense of the word and also when
we counter the charac­teristics and functions of the Promised One.

The word Farqaleet is composed of two parts, fariq and leet; fariq signifying one
that discriminates something; and leet standing
for satan or falsehood. Farqaleet, therefore, must indicate one that discriminates
falsehood. Now, turning to the words of the prophecy we find that the Paraclete is also spoken of as the Spirit
of Truth; and what else can discriminate
falsehood but the Spirit of Truth? Farqaleet and the Spirit
of Truth are, therefore, synonymous,
and Paraclete being no other than Farqaleet cannot carry the Greek
sense of Comforter, but the sense conveyed in its original form, that is to
say one that discriminates between truth and falsehood.

Next, let us see whether, in its true original sense,
the word is applicable to the Holy Prophet of Arabia. We find in the Holy
Quran, 61:6, a passage corresponding to John, 14, 16, foretelling the advent
of a Paraclete, that Jesus predicted the appearance of an Ahmad. We must,
therefore, compare the words Paraclete and Ahmad to ascertain if they refer
to the same person. Paraclete has already been explained as one
that discriminates between truth and falsehood. The word Ahmad is derived from hamd, and means
one that profusely praises good attributes. The Holy Prophet of Arabia appeared
at a time when idol-worship was in full swing in Arabia. False deities had
been set up throughout the land; and false attributes were being imputed
to the Divine Being almost throughout the world, among such being the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity. It was the be-all and end-all of the Prophet's mission
to establish the Unity of God, purged of all evil attributes that had accumulated
around the conception of Him in the minds of the multitude. The Holy Prophet
therefore addressed himself, heart and soul, to the establishment of the
true attributes of God and to the dispelling of all false ones, and this
is exactly what the word Ahmad implies. He discriminated, so to say, between
the true and false attributes of God. Was he not then the Spirit
of Truth,
at the appearance of whom falsehood vanished? Hence Ahmad imports the same
sense as Paraclete. The Holy Quran, therefore, correctly refers to the prediction
in John, 14, 16, as to the advent of a Prophet who will discriminate truth
from falsehood — a Paraclete or an Ahmad.

This puts an end, one may imagine, to all contention
as to whether Paraclete or Periclyte is the word contained in the prophecy
of John, 14, 16, and whether this prophecy and the one in the Quran, 61:
6, both refer to the advent of the same person, since our Holy Prophet has,
by a happy coincidence, two names, Ahmad and Muhammad, corresponding to these
two Greek words, and conveying, respectively, the same meanings. Let us now
turn to what is, perhaps, a more important aspect of the question. The Gospel
gives a number of characteris­tics
that are to distinguish the Promised One — is the Quranic Ahmad or Muhammad
possessed of these? A comparative glance at the Bible and the Quran will reveal
the fact that the description of the Promised One as given in the two books
is the same to the very letter. The Paraclete is repeatedly spoken of in the
Bible as the Spirit of Truth, and it may be observed here in passing that the
word Paraclete can, by no stretch of fancy, be twisted to fit in with the Holy
Ghost, for nowhere in the Bible is the latter called the Spirit of Truth. Furthermore,
Jesus speaks of him as another Paraclete. Jesus himself was of course one Paraclete;
the other foretold, therefore, must also be a mortal like himself. The Quranic
picture is the same in this respect, when it proclaims the advent of the Holy
Prophet in the follow­ing words: "Say, the Spirit of Truth (that had
been promised to you) is come and falsehood is vanished," when it is evident
that the Holy Prophet claimed to be the Spirit of Truth. The defining al prefixed
to the word haq recalls attention to the promise God made through Jesus. It
is futile to object that the Holy Prophet was a man and not a Spirit. The Bible
itself has used the word Spirit in a large variety of senses, as, for example, “The
Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," where it signifies the spiritual
part of man. Again, it is also used to stand for God, both in the Holy Quran
and the Bible, as descending upon the righteous, and yet again it signi­fies
a holy person: “That which is born of the spirit is spirit." The
Christian contention that the word spirit cannot apply to a corporeal being
is therefore without basis. Even the Holy Ghost himself assumed visible shape,
a bodily shape like a dove; cloven tongues like
as of fire, and therefore this
can be no objection to the mention of the Holy Prophet as a spirit in a meta­phorical
sense, when we consider that the Holy Ghost can appear as a dove and even the
second person of the three­fold Godhead can assume human form. Perhaps,
the words of the Bible, regarding the Paraclete, that the world "seeth
him not, neither knoweth him," afford some ground to the Christian for
believing that he must not be a visible human being but an invisible spirit.
But this again is no less untenable. Does the same Bible not use similar words
on a similar occasion: "Because they seeing see not," and again: "that
seeing they might not see”? These words should, on the other hand, furnish
yet further evidence that the Paraclete is no other than the Holy Prophet,
of whom the Holy Quran has used exactly the same words: "They look at
thee, but they do not see thee."

Another characteristic of the Promised Paraclete, as
set forth in the Bible, has proved another stumbling block to the Christians. “That he (the Paraclete)
may abide with you for ever" gives them the erroneous im­pression
that the Paraclete, in order to be immortal, must needs be a spirit and not
a human being, which betrays their ignorance of the Bible itself. The very
words of Jesus in this connection will suffice to remove this erroneous idea: "He
shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever," clearly
indicates that the Paraclete will abide for ever in a certain sense in which
Jesus himself shall not. It is obvious, therefore, that the Paraclete's abiding
for ever must not be taken in the sense of a spiritual life; for in that sense
Jesus too shares the privilege with him. Jesus does claim an eternal life for
himself, so far as the life of the spirit as distinct from the physical body
is concerned, when he says: "If a man love me, he will keep my words and
my Father will love him and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." But
the Paraclete shall have eternal life in a sense other than that in which Jesus
might have it, as the previous quotation shows. The abiding for ever on the
part of the Paraclete cannot, therefore, be in a spiritual sense, and it is
absurd to argue that because the Holy Ghost enjoys eternal life he must therefore
be the same as the Paraclete, for the Holy Ghost's eternity of life, like that
of Jesus and unlike that of the Paraclete is in a spiritual state.

As a matter of fact, when Jesus spoke of the cessation
of his own life and the continuation of that of the Paraclete, he implicitly
referred to the duration of their existence through their teachings and their
spiritual influence on mankind. When a prophet is raised up for the reformation
of a people, he is equipped with a twofold weapon — a code of laws wherewith to regulate the
life of man, and a personal magnetism exercising an ennobling influence upon
whomsoever he may come in contact with. In both these respects, Jesus has ceased
to exist long since, while the Holy Prophet of Arabia lives on to this day
and shall live on for ever. Jesus came with a set of laws and a spiritual force,
whereby he effected a considerable refor­mation among his own people for
a time. But, by and by, the laws that were suited to the then stage of society
ceased to be of practical utility when found with the subse­quent growth
and development of that society, and the spiritual force that had wrought miracles
of old, lost its efficacy and vanished. Thus arose the need for another Paraclete
who should bring with him a perfect law, not for a particular clan or clime
but for the whole of the human race. Civilisation was, by this time, sufficiently
grown up, to receive teachings which went far beyond the mental capacity of
the Jews of Jesus’ time. Realising the inferiority of the stuff Jesus
had to deal with, he frankly confesses the deficiency of his own teachings: "I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." At
the advent of the Holy Prophet of Arabia, the barriers of nationalities had
been to a great extent demolished and human society was on the way to
be welded into one vast family under the common Fatherhood of God. Therefore,
the pearls of Jesus, intended exclusively for the Jewish nation, failed to
meet the requirements arising out of this new situation. A perfect law to regulate
the whole of human society was thus required to replace the inadequate code
of Jesus. Muhammad was raised up to meet the need in reference to which the
Holy Quran says:

“And We have not sent thee but as an embodiment
of Mercy for all the worlds, that is, for all peoples and all ages."

This, in fact, is the sense in which Jesus could not
abide forever, and another Paraclete appeared in the person of the Holy Prophet
of Arabia as a perma­nent
source of blessings. Nigh on fourteen centuries have elapsed since the dawn
of this spiritual light from the summit of Mount Paran, and to this day its
rays are as bright as ever. He is the ever-living source from which blessing
has emanated through all those fourteen centuries. The history of Islam abounds
with glowing accounts of spiritual giants appearing among Muslims from time
to time to invigorate society and vindicate the cause of truth and righteousness.
The Holy Prophet is reported to have said, “Verily, God shall raise for
this (Muslim) nation, at the commencement of each century, one who shall put
fresh life into their Faith." The prophecy has turned out true to the
very letter and not a century has since passed but some such person has made
his appear­ance to uplift mankind.

This, in brief, was the sense in which Jesus said that
the Paraclete should abide for ever, while he himself would not. We have
a further characteristic of the Paraclete in St. John's Gospel, namely, that “He shall not speak
of himself but whatever he shall hear that shall he speak." Again, the
words are clear enough and cannot be twisted to refer to the Holy Ghost. The
Holy Ghost, being the third person of the Trinity, is a co-partner of the Godhead,
and has a fair claim to at least one-third of it. Why, then, should it be reduced
to the status of a recipient, hearing anything from any other person? It is,
on the other hand, the active agent imparting words to others who should communicate
them to mankind. Obviously, the passage refers to a man inspired by God, who
shall transmit to others nothing beyond what is revealed to him. In other words,
he speaks only what he hears from God. The reference must be to a man holding
communication with God and communicating God's Will to the people. There is
one and only one person who answers to this description of the Paraclete as
contained in the Gospel of St. John, which the Holy Quran corroborates in the
follow­ing words: "He doth not speak of himself, but it is the word
of God that is revealed to him," that is, he speaks what he hears from
God. This is an attribute peculiar to the Holy Prophet of Arabia alone. The
prophets before him, it is true, heard God's word and afterwards spoke to the
people. But when they spoke at other times, when not under the influence
of the Holy Ghost, they spoke as of themselves and not of God. The Holy Prophet,
on the other hand, was never forsaken for one moment by the Holy Ghost, who
was his constant companion. Therefore, he did not utter a single word of himself,
but whatever he heard from God. Of the noble band of prophets, there is not
one who lays claim to the distinction that he spoke not a word of himself but
only what he heard from God. It is the Holy Prophet of Arabia alone who is
depicted as such and he, therefore, is the Promised Paraclete.

Yet another function of the Paraclete as set forth
in the same Gospel: “He
shall testify of me," that is,to the truth of Jesus, is absurd on the
face of it. The process implies the presence of a human being to bear evidence.
What the Holy Ghost can at best do is no more than to instil certain ideas
into human minds — this, however, is anything but "testifying." Even
granting, for the sake of argument, that the Holy Ghost did actually bear "witness
through human beings,” the question arises whether he did purify Jesus
of the false charges laid at his door. The Jews heaped curses upon him and
alleged that he had died on the cross, which they regarded as an accursed death.
Did the Christians, inspired by the Holy Ghost, clear him of this? No! On the
contrary, they assisted the Jews in their blasphemous propaganda, by admitting
his death on the cross. Further­more, they imputed to him the most abominable
offence, namely, that he called himself the Son of God.

The Holy Prophet of Arabia (peace and blessings of God be upon him) alone
fulfilled these prophetic words of the Gospel. He it was who emphatically pronounced
the Divine words:

“I shall purify thee (O Jesus) of all the false
charges imputed, to thee by the unbeliever.”

How far the Holy Prophet succeeded in achieving this
can be judged from the fact that every Muslim looks upon Jesus as the righteous
servant of God; as His Prophet, belief in whom forms part of a Muslim's faith.
Excess of hatred and enmity on the part of the Jews was responsible for the
blackest picture of Jesus, while excess of zeal and love on the part of his
admirers, the Christians, painted him in fantastic colours no less hideous.
The Holy Prophet came and testified of him as he, in reality, was — the Prophet of God, His servant
and His beloved. He purged him of all the rubbish accumulated round about him
by virtue of excess on both sides. Thus he fulfilled the words of Jesus, “He
shall testify of me."

To sum up, the true word in the prophecy whether Paraclete or Periclyte applies
to the Holy Prophet of Arabia, the one meaning Ahmad and the other Muhammad.

The characteristics of the Paraclete, as laid down
in the Gospel of St. John, are met with, one and all, in the person of the
Holy Prophet. He came to discriminate truth from falsehood and was thus the
Spirit of Truth. He brought a perfect code of laws and so fulfilled the words
of Jesus: "I have yet many things
to say to ye, but ye cannot bear them now. ...Howbeit when he, the Spirit of
Truth, is come, he will guide you unto all truth."

The Holy Ghost never left him and so he never spoke
of himself, but, whatever he heard, he spoke. He alone cleared Jesus of all
the false charges made against him, and thus “testified" of him.

Who else, then, but the Holy Prophet (peace and the blessings of God be upon
him), fulfilling as he did all the conditions of the prophecy in St. John,
can claim to be the Paraclete? He, in fact, it was whose auspicious advent
was foretold by Jesus, and not his advent only. But the signs whereby he might
be known, so that his people might readily recognise him, and partake of the
spiritual blessings in store for the human race, which was to be manifested
through the Holy Prophet of Arabia (peace and blessings of God be upon him).

Conclusion

We have examined some very clear prophecies in the Parsi Scriptures, and in
the Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian sacred books, and we have a very
serious question to consider if we are, in the least, religiously disposed.

That an unlettered man, knowing nothing
of foreign languages, should say something that has never been said before
by seer or prophet; that students of comparative religion should confirm
the truth of that statement, and that a whole chain of prophets down all
the ages and among all people, thousands of years ago, speaking different
languages, should all give in their Scriptures the happy tidings of the advent
of a particular man in a particular land, accompanied by no common events
of everyday occurrence, but by signs beyond the power of man to accomplish;
and, above all, that the teachings of the universally Promised Prophet should
be actually without a parallel for the unification and brotherhood of the
whole mankind — do
all these considerations not constitute testimony which should make all fair-minded
men who lay any claim at all to wisdom or even common sense put their heads
together and ponder?